5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Klaipėda.
6.  From 15 October 1993 until 30 October 1995 the applicant was the chairman of the commercial bank Vakarų Bankas.
7.  On 6 September 1995 a criminal case was instituted regarding embezzlement of the bank's property.
8.  The Government submitted that on 6 November 1995 the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the case. The questioning of the applicant lasted for three to four hours, including breaks and examination of documents.
9.  On 21 October 1996 the applicant was charged with embezzlement of property of a high value. He was later also charged with forgery of an official document. A prosecutor imposed a remand measure on the applicant pending further action – the obligation not to leave his place of residence.
10.  On 30 July 1997 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. On 26 January 1999 the Vilnius Regional Court decided to release the applicant from pre-trial detention on 29 January 1999, as on that date the statutory eighteen-month time-limit for holding him in detention would end.
11.  From 30 January 1999 until 29 July 1999 the applicant was held under house arrest.
12.  From 29 July 1999 until 3 October 2005 the applicant was under an order not to leave his place of residence.
13.  On 29 July 1999 the prosecutor brought the case before the Klaipėda City District Court.
14.  On 12 August 1999 the Klaipėda City District Court committed the applicant for trial and set 2 December 1999 as the date of the first hearing.
15.  By a judgment of 20 April 2001, the Klaipėda City District Court acquitted the applicant, dismissing both charges against him. The court also acquitted the applicant's co-defendant in the case.
16.  Following an appeal by the prosecutor, on 23 April 2002 the Klaipėda Regional Court upheld the lower court's judgment acquitting the applicant. The appellate court quashed the trial court's judgment in respect of the co-defendant and remitted that part of the case to the prosecutor's office for further investigation.
17.  The prosecution and the applicant's co-defendant submitted cassation appeals.
18.  On 15 October 2002 the Supreme Court decided that the prosecution had failed to properly formulate the charges against the applicant and his co-defendant. The court concluded that this failure was a violation of essential procedural rules and therefore remitted the case to the Klaipėda Regional Prosecutor's Office for further investigation.
19.  On 6 August 2004 the applicant's lawyer requested the prosecutor not to proceed with the case, as the applicant had not committed the crimes with which he had been charged.
20.  On 13 August 2004 the prosecution dismissed his request.
21.  On 3 September 2004 the Klaipėda Regional Prosecutor's Office concluded its pre-trial investigation and notified the applicant thereof. Having submitted a new bill of indictment, in which the applicant was charged with embezzlement of property of a high value, the prosecution transferred the case to the Klaipėda Regional Court on 9 September 2004.
22.  By a judgment of 27 May 2005, the Klaipėda Regional Court dismissed the charges against the applicant as unfounded. As to the applicant's co-defendant, he was acquitted of some charges; criminal action on the remaining charges lapsed through the term of prescription.
23.  The prosecution and the applicant's co-defendant appealed.
24.  On 3 October 2005 the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant's co-defendant of all charges and upheld the remaining part of the lower court's judgment. The court also ordered that the obligation on the applicant not to leave the place of residence be terminated. The decision became final upon the prosecution's decision not to submit a cassation appeal.